Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: ss.2(f), 7A – Liability of Corporation to pay statutory contribution in relation to workers (total 159 at relevant time) engaged in the work of loading and unloading in the Godowns of the Corporation – Entitlement of workers to claim benefit under the Act – Case of Corporation was that the stocking, loading and unloading of the commodities in its godown is done through contractors, who in turn, employs the workers for doing the said job for the Corporation in their godown – Adjudicating authority held that the Corporation was liable to pay the contribution of these workers in accordance with the provisions of the Act – Appellate authority upheld the order, which gave rise to filing of the writ petition by the Corporation in the High Court – High Court placed reliance on the finding by the High Court recorded in an earlier proceedings that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Corporation (as master) and the workers (as servants) and held that in view of that finding, the proceedings in question were bad in law – On appeal, held: High Court should have seen that the proceedings in question had arisen out of the PF Act and, therefore, the issue was required to be decided in the light of the relevant provisions of the PF Act and not in the light of the finding recorded in the proceedings arising under the Industrial Disputes Act – High Court did not notice the definition of “employee” given in s.2(f) of the Act and proceeded to pass the impugned order only in the light of finding recorded in the proceedings arising under the ID Act – Matter remitted to High Court for adjudication afresh – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Labour Laws.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court
HELD : The High Court failed to examine the issue keeping in view the definition of “employee” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. The High Court should have seen that the proceedings in question have arisen out of the Act in question and, therefore, the issue was required to be decided in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act in question but not in the light of the finding recorded in the proceedings arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court also should have seen that in order to decide the relationship of employer and employee for the purpose of applicability of the Act in question, the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of “employee” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. It should have been seen that firstly, the definition of “employee” under the ID Act is not identical to the definition of “employee” defined under Section 2(f) of the Act; and secondly, the object of the ID Act and the Act in question is not the same. In other words, the definition of “employee” under the ID Act and the one defined under the Act in question are not similar. Even their objects are also not identical. It is for these two reasons, any finding recorded by the Labour Court while deciding the dispute under the ID Act will be of no consequence while deciding the question arising under the Act in question. The issue was, therefore, required to be decided independently and de hors the proceedings decided under the ID Act. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22] [241-E-H; 242-A-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.